Literature DB >> 30517594

Drug Targetor: a web interface to investigate the human druggome for over 500 phenotypes.

Héléna A Gaspar1,2, Christopher Hübel1,2,3, Gerome Breen1,2.   

Abstract

SUMMARY: Results from hundreds of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are now freely available and offer a catalogue of the association between phenotypes across medicine with variants in the genome. With the aim of using this data to better understand therapeutic mechanisms, we have developed Drug Targetor, a web interface that allows the generation and exploration of drug-target networks of hundreds of phenotypes using GWAS data. Drug Targetor networks consist of drug and target nodes ordered by genetic association and connected by drug-target or drug-gene relationship. We show that Drug Targetor can help prioritize drugs, targets and drug-target interactions for a specific phenotype based on genetic evidence.
AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Drug Targetor v1.21 is a web application freely available online at drugtargetor.com and under MIT licence. The source code can be found at https://github.com/hagax8/drugtargetor. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30517594      PMCID: PMC6612852          DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty982

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1367-4803            Impact factor:   6.937


1 Introduction

The number of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is growing. Consortia are unravelling associations between genetic variants and traits with ever increasing sample sizes. Available GWAS cover many areas of medicine, behaviour and biology. In addition, initiatives such as the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project (GTEx Consortium, 2013) investigate the tissue-dependent variation in gene expression levels and identify associations with expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs), and methods such as S-PrediXcan (Barbeira ) allow prediction of tissue-specific expression levels using GWAS summary statistics. These advances can help map GWAS associations to protein targets in a tissue-specific manner. Maggiora and Gokhale (2017) have shown that bipartite drug–target networks can be useful to assess polypharmacology (drugs binding several targets) or polyspecificity (targets interacting with dissimilar drugs), by providing a simple bipartite representation of drug–target interactions. In this paper, we present Drug Targetor (drugtargetor.com), a web interface that allows users to browse over 500 GWAS to identify drugs and targets of interest using bipartite drug–gene networks. These networks are phenotype-dependent: drugs and genes are ordered using GWAS-derived genetic scores. Drug Targetor uses several data layers: drug–target interactions (how a drug binds a target), drug–gene interactions (how a drug influences gene expression), genetic scores to order drugs and genes by association with a phenotype and predicted gene expression levels derived from GWAS and eQTLs.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Bipartite drug–target networks

Drug Targetor v1.21 builds phenotype-dependent bipartite drug–gene networks using HTML 5 canvas and JavaScript (Supplementary Fig. S1). A bipartite network consists in two sets of disjoint and independent sets of nodes A and B. Edges connect nodes in A to nodes in B. In Drug Targetor networks, A = drugs and B = genes. Drugs and genes are connected by type of drug–gene or drug–target interaction (Table 1). Genes and drugs are ordered by genetic scores derived from GWAS. The web platform allows to choose the phenotype and tissue of interest, the drug ensemble to be used and the type of drug–target or drug–gene interaction. A total of 530 phenotypes are available in the interface as of October 2018. The drugs are subdivided into categories defined by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (ATC, https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index). Drug Targetor uses its own database of genetic scores for drugs and genes; users can choose to visualize the network for the top drugs, or a network corresponding to a specific ATC drug class.
Table 1.

Graphical elements of Drug Targetor networks

Graphical elementDescription
Blue connectorAgonist, positive modulator
Orange connectorAntagonist, negative modulator
Brown connectorPartial agonist
Purple connectorModulator
Black connectorInteraction but unknown mechanism of action
Red connectorDecreases gene expression
Green connectorIncreases gene expression
Grey connectorUnknown effect on gene expression
Left-hand table (drug table)Drugs ordered by genetic score for a given phenotype
Right-hand table (gene table)Genes ordered by genetic score for a given phenotype
Red/green cells (gene table)Negative/positive tissue-dependent association result
Graphical elements of Drug Targetor networks

2.2 Phenotype-dependent drug and gene scores

Drugs and genes are ordered by GWAS-derived scores, which can be used as filters in the network construction. The drug score is the −log10(P-value) of the drug/phenotype association test, computed using MAGMA pathway analysis (de Leeuw ) after mapping each drug to its interacting genes. Gene scores, on the other hand, are a combination of two gene-wise tests (cf. Supplementary Text S3 for details): MAGMA gene-wise association test and S-PrediXcan (Barbeira ) tissue–gene association test, which uses eQTL data (Supplementary Text S4). The gene scores range from 1 to 7; genes with the highest score (7) are significant in both S-PrediXcan and MAGMA. Drug Targetor reports all S-PrediXcan z-scores; positive or negative z-scores correspond to up- or down-regulation in the tissue of interest.

2.3 Drug–target and drug–gene connections

Different types of interactions can be selected in Drug Targetor and are used to connect drugs and targets: drug–gene interactions (how a drug influences gene expression), and drug–target interactions (how a drug interacts with a protein target). Drug–target interactions are further divided into drug mechanism of action (antagonist, agonist, modulator), and data measuring binding of a compound to a target (Supplementary Text S1). Different colours are attributed to the connections depending on interaction type (cf. Table 1). The different data sources and their references are reported in Supplementary Table S1.

3 Example

We present an example of a Drug Targetor network based on a type 2 diabetes GWAS (Scott ) in Figure 1.
Fig. 1.

Drug Targetor network representing top drugs and their targets with drug and gene scores derived from a type 2 diabetes genome-wide association study by Scott . Drug and gene scores were computed using MAGMA. Tissue-wise gene associations (z-scores) in the gene table were computed using S-PrediXcan

Drug Targetor network representing top drugs and their targets with drug and gene scores derived from a type 2 diabetes genome-wide association study by Scott . Drug and gene scores were computed using MAGMA. Tissue-wise gene associations (z-scores) in the gene table were computed using S-PrediXcan Drugs with highest score are represented with their top targets (for gene filtering options, cf. Supplementary Text S5). Top-ranked drugs include already known diabetes drugs agonists of the glitazone receptor (PPARG gene), but also melatonin receptor 1B agonists. A recent study showed an improvement of sleep quality in type 2 diabetes patients with insomnia treated with ramelteon (Tsunoda ); evidence also points towards a link between melatonin and glucose homeostasis (Lardone ). Drug Targetor suggestions are supported by literature, indicating that such networks could be suggestive of repurposing opportunities.

Funding

H.G. and G.B. acknowledge funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health [PGC3: U01 MH109528]. We gratefully acknowledge capital and computing equipment funding from the Maudsley Charity [grant reference 980]; and Guy’s and St Thomas’s Charity [grant reference STR130505]. Conflict of Interest: G.B. reports consultancy and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Illumina and grant funding from Eli Lilly. H.A.G. and C.H. report no conflict of interest. Click here for additional data file.
  7 in total

Review 1.  Melatonin and glucose metabolism: clinical relevance.

Authors:  P J Lardone; Sanchez N Alvarez-Sanchez; J M Guerrero; A Carrillo-Vico
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.116

2.  The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 38.330

3.  MAGMA: generalized gene-set analysis of GWAS data.

Authors:  Christiaan A de Leeuw; Joris M Mooij; Tom Heskes; Danielle Posthuma
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 4.475

4.  The Effects of Ramelteon on Glucose Metabolism and Sleep Quality in Type 2 Diabetic Patients With Insomnia: A Pilot Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Tetsuji Tsunoda; Masayo Yamada; Tomoaki Akiyama; Taichi Minami; Taishi Yoshii; Yoshinobu Kondo; Shinobu Satoh; Yasuo Terauchi
Journal:  J Clin Med Res       Date:  2016-10-26

5.  A simple mathematical approach to the analysis of polypharmacology and polyspecificity data.

Authors:  Gerry Maggiora; Vijay Gokhale
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-06-06

6.  Exploring the phenotypic consequences of tissue specific gene expression variation inferred from GWAS summary statistics.

Authors:  Alvaro N Barbeira; Scott P Dickinson; Rodrigo Bonazzola; Jiamao Zheng; Heather E Wheeler; Jason M Torres; Eric S Torstenson; Kaanan P Shah; Tzintzuni Garcia; Todd L Edwards; Eli A Stahl; Laura M Huckins; Dan L Nicolae; Nancy J Cox; Hae Kyung Im
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  An Expanded Genome-Wide Association Study of Type 2 Diabetes in Europeans.

Authors:  Robert A Scott; Laura J Scott; Reedik Mägi; Letizia Marullo; Kyle J Gaulton; Marika Kaakinen; Natalia Pervjakova; Tune H Pers; Andrew D Johnson; John D Eicher; Anne U Jackson; Teresa Ferreira; Yeji Lee; Clement Ma; Valgerdur Steinthorsdottir; Gudmar Thorleifsson; Lu Qi; Natalie R Van Zuydam; Anubha Mahajan; Han Chen; Peter Almgren; Ben F Voight; Harald Grallert; Martina Müller-Nurasyid; Janina S Ried; Nigel W Rayner; Neil Robertson; Lennart C Karssen; Elisabeth M van Leeuwen; Sara M Willems; Christian Fuchsberger; Phoenix Kwan; Tanya M Teslovich; Pritam Chanda; Man Li; Yingchang Lu; Christian Dina; Dorothee Thuillier; Loic Yengo; Longda Jiang; Thomas Sparso; Hans A Kestler; Himanshu Chheda; Lewin Eisele; Stefan Gustafsson; Mattias Frånberg; Rona J Strawbridge; Rafn Benediktsson; Astradur B Hreidarsson; Augustine Kong; Gunnar Sigurðsson; Nicola D Kerrison; Jian'an Luan; Liming Liang; Thomas Meitinger; Michael Roden; Barbara Thorand; Tõnu Esko; Evelin Mihailov; Caroline Fox; Ching-Ti Liu; Denis Rybin; Bo Isomaa; Valeriya Lyssenko; Tiinamaija Tuomi; David J Couper; James S Pankow; Niels Grarup; Christian T Have; Marit E Jørgensen; Torben Jørgensen; Allan Linneberg; Marilyn C Cornelis; Rob M van Dam; David J Hunter; Peter Kraft; Qi Sun; Sarah Edkins; Katharine R Owen; John R B Perry; Andrew R Wood; Eleftheria Zeggini; Juan Tajes-Fernandes; Goncalo R Abecasis; Lori L Bonnycastle; Peter S Chines; Heather M Stringham; Heikki A Koistinen; Leena Kinnunen; Bengt Sennblad; Thomas W Mühleisen; Markus M Nöthen; Sonali Pechlivanis; Damiano Baldassarre; Karl Gertow; Steve E Humphries; Elena Tremoli; Norman Klopp; Julia Meyer; Gerald Steinbach; Roman Wennauer; Johan G Eriksson; Satu Mӓnnistö; Leena Peltonen; Emmi Tikkanen; Guillaume Charpentier; Elodie Eury; Stéphane Lobbens; Bruna Gigante; Karin Leander; Olga McLeod; Erwin P Bottinger; Omri Gottesman; Douglas Ruderfer; Matthias Blüher; Peter Kovacs; Anke Tonjes; Nisa M Maruthur; Chiara Scapoli; Raimund Erbel; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Susanne Moebus; Ulf de Faire; Anders Hamsten; Michael Stumvoll; Panagiotis Deloukas; Peter J Donnelly; Timothy M Frayling; Andrew T Hattersley; Samuli Ripatti; Veikko Salomaa; Nancy L Pedersen; Bernhard O Boehm; Richard N Bergman; Francis S Collins; Karen L Mohlke; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Torben Hansen; Oluf Pedersen; Inês Barroso; Lars Lannfelt; Erik Ingelsson; Lars Lind; Cecilia M Lindgren; Stephane Cauchi; Philippe Froguel; Ruth J F Loos; Beverley Balkau; Heiner Boeing; Paul W Franks; Aurelio Barricarte Gurrea; Domenico Palli; Yvonne T van der Schouw; David Altshuler; Leif C Groop; Claudia Langenberg; Nicholas J Wareham; Eric Sijbrands; Cornelia M van Duijn; Jose C Florez; James B Meigs; Eric Boerwinkle; Christian Gieger; Konstantin Strauch; Andres Metspalu; Andrew D Morris; Colin N A Palmer; Frank B Hu; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Kari Stefansson; Josée Dupuis; Andrew P Morris; Michael Boehnke; Mark I McCarthy; Inga Prokopenko
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 9.337

  7 in total
  6 in total

Review 1.  Advancing the use of genome-wide association studies for drug repurposing.

Authors:  William R Reay; Murray J Cairns
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  An update on the role of common genetic variation underlying substance use disorders.

Authors:  Emma C Johnson; Yoonhoo Chang; Arpana Agrawal
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2020-03-17

3.  Drug repositioning based on network-specific core genes identifies potential drugs for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder in children.

Authors:  Huan Gao; Yuan Ni; Xueying Mo; Dantong Li; Shan Teng; Qingsheng Huang; Shuai Huang; Guangjian Liu; Sheng Zhang; Yaping Tang; Long Lu; Huiying Liang
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 7.271

4.  Using genetic drug-target networks to develop new drug hypotheses for major depressive disorder.

Authors:  Héléna A Gaspar; Zachary Gerring; Christopher Hübel; Christel M Middeldorp; Eske M Derks; Gerome Breen
Journal:  Transl Psychiatry       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 6.222

Review 5.  Dissecting diagnostic heterogeneity in depression by integrating neuroimaging and genetics.

Authors:  Amanda M Buch; Conor Liston
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 8.294

6.  Genetically-regulated transcriptomics & copy number variation of proctitis points to altered mitochondrial and DNA repair mechanisms in individuals of European ancestry.

Authors:  Gita A Pathak; Renato Polimanti; Talisa K Silzer; Frank R Wendt; Ranajit Chakraborty; Nicole R Phillips
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 4.430

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.